### INTRODUCTION

### MATERIALS AND METHODS

*t*-test and one-way analysis of variance were performed, and the difference between groups was verified through Scheffe method for

*post hoc*verification. Multiple regression analysis was performed to verify the causal relationship of the set variables. The significance level was set at

*P*<0.05. This study was approved by Eulji University and received approval number (2023-11-37).

### RESULTS

### Differences in motivation for participation based on general characteristics

#### Differences in pleasure motivation according to general characteristics

#### Differences in social motivation based on general characteristics

#### Differences in health and physical fitness motivation according to general characteristics

#### Differences in technological development motivation according to general characteristics

#### Differences in condition motivation according to general characteristics

#### Differences in achievement motivation according to general characteristics

### Correlation between motivation for participation, satisfaction with participation, and satisfaction with school life

### The impact of participation motivation on participation satisfaction

*B*=0.788,

*P*=0.000) had a significant effect on satisfaction with participation. As a result of verifying the coefficient of determination of the regression analysis,

*R*

^{2}=0.645, which means that 64% of the variables used in the statistics fit the standard regression line. In other words, it was analyzed that 64% of the total variance was explained. The results are as shown in Table 9.

*B*=0.272,

*P*= 0.000), condition (

*B*=0.194,

*P*=0.000), skill development (

*B*= 0.135,

*P*=0.003), and physical strength (

*B*=0.131,

*P*=0.002) had an influence in that order. When the dependent variable was leader satisfaction, the explanatory power of the regression model was found to be 46.2%, and it was found that the influence was in the order of socialization (

*B*=0.177,

*P*=0.000), sense of accomplishment (

*B*=0.164,

*P*=0.001), physical strength (

*B*=0.133,

*P*=0.009), and enjoyment (

*B*=0.129,

*P*=0.014). When the dependent variable is health satisfaction, the explanatory power of the regression model was found to be 37.5%, and the factors of participation motivation were found to be health and physical strength (

*B*=0.218,

*P*=0.000), condition (

*B*=0.151,

*P*=0.005), social (

*B*=0.130,

*P*=0.016), and enjoyment (

*B*=0.128,

*P*=0.033) in that order. The results are shown in Table 10.

### The impact of participation motivation on school life satisfaction

*B*=0.833,

*P*=0.000) had a significant effect on school life satisfaction. As a result of verifying the coefficient of determination of the regression analysis,

*R*

^{2}=0.593, which means that 59% of the variables used in the statistics fit the standard regression line. In other words, it was analyzed that 59% of the total variance was explained. The results are as shown in Table 11.

*B*=0.194,

*P*=0.002), condition (

*B*=0.174,

*P*=0.002), and enjoyment (

*B*=0.128,

*P*= 0.041) were found to have an effect. When the dependent variable was satisfaction with rule compliance, the explanatory power of the regression model was found to be 46.4%, and among the participation motivation factors, skill development (

*B*=0.252,

*P*=0.000), condition (

*B*=0.198,

*P*=0.000), socializing (

*B*=0.179,

*P*=0.001), and enjoyment (

*B*=0.129,

*P*=0.033) were found to have an effect. When the dependent variable is satisfaction with peer relationships, the explanatory power of the regression model was found to be 47.5%, and it was found to have an influence in the order of social (

*B*=0.362,

*P*=0.000) and technological development (

*B*=0.190,

*P*=0.002). The results are shown in Table 12.

### The impact of participation satisfaction on school life satisfaction

*B*=0.821,

*P*=0.000) affected school life satisfaction. As a result of verifying the coefficient of determination of the regression analysis,

*R*

^{2}=0.555, which means that 55% of the variables used in the statistics fit the standard regression line. In other words, it was analyzed that 55% of the total variance was explained. The results are as shown in Table 13.

*B*=0.401,

*P*= 0.000), leader satisfaction (

*B*=0.299,

*P*=0.000), and health satisfaction (

*B*=0.110,

*P*=0.030) were found to have an effect. When the dependent variable is satisfaction with rule compliance, the explanatory power of the regression model was 45.3%, and among the participation satisfaction factors, program satisfaction (

*B*=0.565,

*P*=0.000) and leader satisfaction (

*B*=0.224,

*P*=0.000) were found to have an effect. When the dependent variable is satisfaction with peer relationships, the explanatory power of the regression model was 42.6%, and program satisfaction (

*B*=0.614,

*P*=0.000) and leader satisfaction (

*B*=0.200,

*P*=0.000) were found to have an effect. The results are shown in Table 14.